Status / sprite info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the coordinate system origin (0,0) at top-left, the specific info returned, and the active sprite scoping for subsequent tools. This gives the agent useful expectations without contradicting the read-only hint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the primary purpose appears first, followed by the exact info returned, then the coordinate convention and active-sprite context. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter status tool, the description covers the connection-check purpose, the return content, coordinate system, and how the active sprite relates to future tool calls. No output schema exists, but the description adequately enumerates the return fields, making it complete for correct invocation and interpretation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter ambiguity exists.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool checks the connection and returns info about the active sprite, listing the specific fields (size, color mode, layers, frames, active layer/frame). This is a specific verb-resource combination, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like aseprite_sprites or aseprite_view.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context by explaining that the active sprite becomes the target for all following tools, implying this tool is useful for confirming the current working sprite before subsequent operations. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is reasonably clear for a zero-parameter status tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.